The European Court of Human Rights has given the government three months to return a parcel of land snatched from its owners in 1984 under the pretext of public interest, or else pay them €500,000.

The land in Qajjenza was expropriated without any compensation, forcing its almost 30 owners to file a human rights case in the Strasbourg-based court, claiming a breach of their right to the enjoyment of their property.

They told the court they had not received any compensation in over 40 years and were made to bear a disproportionate burden.

The case concerns an unused triangular plot measuring just over 500 square metres that had been earmarked for an Enemalta gas bottling plant.

The land cuts through two other parcels of land owned by the same owners which had also been expropriated. They have since been returned to the owners. The owners told the ECHR that since the remaining land cut across the two other properties, the whole area could not be developed or sold for development. 

In a partial judgment handed down by the ECHR last year, the court had declared that the owners’ human rights had indeed been breached and chastised the Maltese government for having expropriated the Birżebbuġa land without providing evidence that the land grab was in the public interest.

As the case continued on the compensation due, the owners submitted an expert report that the compensation for the use of the property was €528,455 or €838,155 if it had been taken without a public interest.

The government, on the other hand, submitted its own expert report which estimated the loss of rent since 1984 at €1,728.

The applicants told the court that they approached the authorities for the return of the land because that option meant that the large area could then be developed. They said that if the land was not going to be returned to them, then they were demanding the full market value of the land – €926,000, plus the devaluation of the adjacent properties which had since been returned, amounting to a total of €1.6 million.

The government said the applicants’ claims were largely disproportionate, particularly the devaluation of the remaining land. It also noted that the applicants’ expert’s report was based on the potential development of the much larger area of land, on the premise that this would be developed as housing units.

In its judgement, the court noted that the restitution of the property was not impossible, given that no use had been made of it and especially after adjacent properties had been returned.

It found that restitution “would be the most appropriate redress”. It therefore ordered the government to return the land within three months or else pay the owners €500,000.

Lawyers Ian Refalo, Mark Refalo, Sara Grech and Thomas Abela appeared for the owners.